2012 QCCQ 11850, 2012 QCCQ 11850

Protection de la jeunesse — 122931 2012 QCCQ 11850 JD1705 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITY [...] « Chambre de la Jeunesse »

N° : 450-41-003938-108 DATE : JUNE 5, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF : HONOURABLE MICHEL DUBOIS, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD : X, born […], 2010 and- [Social Workers 1 and 2] , persons duly authorized by the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse de A, working at […], city A, district A, Petitioner , and- A , […], city B, (Québec), […], and- B , city B, (Québec), […], Child's parents , ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In its motion of 14 February 2012 , the Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to revise the situation of the child X who will be […] years old next […], and more specifically the judgment of 9 March 2011 involving the child, and which governed his situation for a period of one year. [ 2 ] The key facts alleged in the motion of 14 February 2012 are as follows : « 4.

a) X has a ten (10) month delay in his development. He is seeing a lot of medical specialists;

b) Mrs C, nurse at CSSS, regularly monitors X's weight;

c) On September 7 th , X began physiotherapy. It's having good results on him;

d) The mother is staying with her parents and X. She is planning to move to City B in July;

e) Contacts between X and his father have been increased since March 2011. Since January 2012, X sees his father every other weekend and irregular visits during the week;

f) The parents do not have a good relationship. However, they communicate through the communication book or text messages;

g) Since the last judgment, the parents left X outside their adult relationship issues. [ 3 ] The DYP representative who was then working on this child’s and his family’s situation drafted a report (exhibit D-2).

At the outset, this report points out that the child continues to receive regular and necessary medical care, physical rehabilitation and stimulation services. [ 4 ] In addition to the aforementioned services, there are specialized services performed by professionals (social worker, speech therapist, and physiotherapist of the Centre de réadaptation de l'A). [ 5 ] The report of 31 January 2012 insisted on the fact that the mother continued to live with her parents, that she wanted to move to City B with her spouse, which she finally did in July 2011, but that at the beginning of December of the same year, she was no longer in a spousal relationship with that man but still lived with him. [ 6 ] In January 2012 , the mother resumed living at her parents’ home while looking for an apartment in City B.

This mother’s life is marked by many developments! [ 7 ] Communication between the parents remained conflicting. The mother found it difficult to trust the father; she had indeed received, at the end of November 2011, text messages from the father in which he talked about the sale of a scale and the splitting of drugs. She was worried, and rightly so, for the safety of her son and no longer wanted him to go at her father’s place. [ 8 ] The father mentioned that he had sent these messages by mistake , but denied being involved in any drug trade.

This was a poor excuse, which did not reassure anyone, especially not this Court. [ 9 ] Indeed, while the father said that he had sent the message to the wrong person, he never denied having written these disturbing messages. [ 10 ] The DYP representative had had the opportunity to notice that the father was impulsive and that he was short-tempered when, in December 2011, she talked to him about planning visitations with his son for the Holiday period.

The father got mad, hit the refrigerator and stormed out of the kitchen only to come back a few minutes later, still upset but able to resume the conversation. [ 11 ] In January 2012 , the parents did not at all agree on the visitation

schedule and the representative went to a great deal of trouble to try and solve the problems (transportation, cancelling a visit, travel and recovering the missed visit...). [ 12 ] In her supplementary report of 24 May 2012 written by the newly appointed DYP representative in this file, we read the following: On May 23 rd , a meeting took place at the Centre de réadaptation A.

The different services put in place were discussed and we were informed that a reference had been made to the Centre de réadaptation en déficience intellectuelle because of X's specific needs (see report from the Center A for more information).

In spite of the fact that the father had confirmed his presence at that meeting, Mister A was absent without notifying. (exhibit D-3, p. 3) [ 13 ] On 2 May 2012 , the Court postponed the hearing set for that date because the father was absent and the Court temporarily suspended contacts between the child and his father. [ 14 ] The father felt that he was suffering a great injustice; he believed that the DYP always favoured the mother as opposed to himself, but he did not understand that the DYP never decides in favour of one of the two parents, but always according to the child’s best interests . [ 15 ] On 18 May 2012 , a meeting with the father took place in order to discuss the specific needs of his son and the DYP’s expectations towards him.

An important meeting was scheduled for 23 May 2012 at the Centre de réadaptation A. [ 16 ] Despite the fact that the father had confirmed his presence at this meeting, he did not show up and had not informed anyone of his absence (a lack of good manners). [ 17 ] This shows once more that the father continues to be immature, highly unpredictable and not reliable. [ 18 ] The DYP representative wrote: Modalities could then not be discussed to ensure that adequate progress for the father's visitation rights and the means to ensure X's well- being during these visits.

Following the meeting, the father was contacted to discuss these elements but refused to collaborate with our

services by being vulgar and hanging up on the social worker. Being unavailable to communicate with us, the revised intervention plan was sent to the father by mail including the following objectives: -X's mother and father will develop adequate means of communication to ensure that they answer their son's needs; X will continue to benefit from regular medical follow-up and all the other services his situation requires; the contacts between X and his father will contribute to answer his physical, psychological and developmental needs. (exhibit D-3, p. 3) [ 19 ] The child has particular needs.

It is obvious that the mother is doing her best to continue meeting her son’s needs and she is right to be worried. [ 20 ] Regarding the father, full cooperation on his

part is required. The DYP representative writes: […] The lack of knowledge of his son's needs incapacitates the father to provide the necessary care during his specific visitation times. This problem could rapidly be remedied if the father contacted the concerned professionals and was more actively implicated in his son's life. As for the clarification of the contacts' modalities, we remain available to discuss them with the mother and father in a respectful exchange. (exhibit D-3, p. 3) [ 21 ] Counsel for the father mentions having had a frank and direct discussion with his client, spelling everything out.

He reminded his client of the importance that he should stay well informed of his son’s specific needs and mentioned that his client had the intention of respecting his commitments in the future. [ 22 ] Counsel for the father also mentioned that the upcoming months would not be like the past year. [ 23 ] The father knows what he has to do, and up until now he did not do what he should have done and what he said he would do. [ 24 ] The DYP should not hesitate to ask the Court to revise the situation should the father not follow through on his commitments, and this well before December 5, 2012. [ 25 ] The Court is not asking the father to do what is impossible, but only that he do the right thing and that he be a good part-time father with all that this involves. [ 26 ] It is in the father’s best interest that he understand the message if he wants to continue to play a role in his son’s life, because it is not what he says is important, rather what he will do.

CONSEQUENTLY, THE COURT: GRANTS the present motion; DECLARES that the security and the development of the child X are still in danger; REVISES the Court order rendered on March 9, 2011 in the present file; ENTRUSTS the child X to his mother; AUTHORIZES in favour of the child, contacts with his father, according to the modalities set between the parties; ORDERS that the parents take an active

part in the measures set forth to put an end to the situation; RECOMMENDS that the father does what he claims he knows what he has to do and that he respects his own commitments; ORDERS that the child receives all the health services he requires; ORDERS that a person working for the Centre jeunesse A or any other establishment or body, provide aid, counsel and assistance to the child ans his family for a period of six (6) months ; RECOMMANDE au Directeur de la protection de la jeunesse de procéder à la révision judiciaire du présent judgement; ENTRUSTS the situation of the child X to the Director of Youth Protection of Centre jeunesse A to see that the measures are carried out. __________________________________ Michel DuBois, J.C.Q.

M e Cathy Séminaro Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection

M e Stéphanie Côté Attorney for the mother M e Maxime Bernatchez Attorney for the father M e Geneviève Lafontaine Attorney for the youth Date of hearing : June 5, 2012